>ancient greeks and romans had the highest IQ of any west eurasian historical population
Total med victory once again
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
>ancient greeks and romans had the highest IQ of any west eurasian historical population
That's probably biased towards information gathered from literate people, who were a much smaller percentage of the total population in ancient times than nowadays.
And?
Geniuses can only emerge if there is a relatively intelligent media.
Its rather biased towards social class. Compare copper age iberia or turkey N eef being at the bottom of the list for instance. those burials were likely random, no class or standing associated. Meanwhile those of BA greece were selective for social class, most of them higher social class than average in contrast
Cool except, you know, neolithic France is as smart or smarter than Swedish like Central European Bell Beakers.
WHG are at the bottom of the lost actually and by a wide margin
What does CA stand for again
Copper Age.
if spaniards are closest to IA eyetalians why are they dumb in comparison to nordics?
They literally have the same IQ as Norwegians
WHGtards bros
Strange for neolithic Iraqis to be so dumb considering they built the first civilizations
They were likely smarter than anyone else at the time
Not genetically
neolithic middle east is in the top 5
and neolithic iraq is the second lowest on the list
seems neolithic Iraq is from 10000 BC or something like this
Neolithic Iran is very low too
Btw another surprise is that bronze age Britain is quite high
Medievalsisters... I thought the dark ages were a meme
Whgtard bros… not our precious abo troglodytes…
Why are they 90 IQ today compared to central Europe's 105 IQ?
Did they really so many points due to non-IE admixture?
Dysgenism and bad selections.
As far as the greeks are concerned the turks genocided their intelligentsia
Also brain drain
I think the Italian-American IQ is quite high on average and most of them are ancient greek like terronis
Which brain drain? The terroni who migrated were mostly poor working class starving bums. And no, modern South Italians don’t cluster with mycenaeans at all, Jovialis
They have 20℅ slav admixture
Which study?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378746783_Evolutionary_Trends_of_Polygenic_Scores_in_European_Populations_From_the_Paleolithic_to_Modern_Times
I'm not even surprised it's the same guys as always, lol. It's somewhat surprising that WHG were so dumb. I think it's not just WHG, but all HGs.
It's probably not sample bias either, because that's a lot of samples.
Actually my baby 🙂
Bruh
Interesting, the fact that WHG were by far the dumbest is also confirmed by this other recent study:
Evolutionary Trajectories of Complex Traits in European Populations of Modern Humans,
Yunus Kuijpers et al.
>Contrary to the cold winters theory, the study found no significant correlation between latitude and intelligence
Chuddies lost
>Emil O. W. Kirkegaard
Oh no....
What's the deal?
He was a politically motivated spazz back in the day, maybe he turned into a legit scientist idk.
Tell me more
As far as I can tell he's some kind of scandis and this study dont look biased for his own group
I know rationalwiki is leddit but still it has all the doxxed info on the goofball.
Again, maybe he became legit but originally he was a quack.
He is a chud obsessed with IQ and social racism shit. He also made a paper about IQ decreases being the cause of the downfall of rome. Expressing how modern italians are genetically dumber than republican romans
What study is this?
Intelligence Trends in Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of Roman Polygenic Scores
Is from the last year
>cont central italy among the lowest
Its over
There is also davide piffer in the study. He also published a measure of iq in modern european genetic datasets with a similar method. Finns came on top, then brits, then amerimutts and italy, and on bottom of europe came spain
>GBR
Piffer also made a study on how genetics explained why southern italians were inferior to northern italians. The authors of this study are both hilarious chuds
Then they would contradict themselves with today's study since allegedly ancient greeks who were far more like modern south Italians than northern ones are genetically smarter
Southern italians are not bronze age mycenaeans so there is no contradiction.
There is since they're similar
That sound very arbitrary
>There is since they're similar
not at all
southern italians resemble more a random syrian+french mixture than they resemble a mycenaean
Distance to: lebanesemuslim+FrenchOccitanie
0.02157456 Ukrainian_Zhytomyr_o
0.02172601 Sicilian_West
0.02413152 Italian_Abruzzo
0.02443330 Italian_Marche
0.02624217 Italian_Molise
0.02692263 Italian_Umbria
0.02841571 Italian_Basilicata
0.02852373 Italian_Lazio
0.02861069 Sicilian_East
0.02867805 Greek_East_Taygetos
0.02880446 Italian_Apulia
0.02953963 Maltese
0.02970784 Italian_Campania
0.03026903 Greek_West_Taygetos
0.03047548 Greek_Laconia
Greeks were shifted toward the levant themselves.
You're seething and not making much sense
non sequiteur, mycenaeans do not resemble those populations, they are largely distant, southern italians do
>yamnaya corded ware sintashta with a 1.2 distance to modern north european are totally like me
>mycenean with a distance of 0.4 are not like you tho
VGH The ancient French like people of Southern Italy. Meanwhile the average Levantine ancestry in modern Southern Italians is just 7%.
The PS_9 is actually genetic intelligence, IQ is measured intelligence. IBS is above CEU (Central European) in genetic intelligence. Again, it's pretty random and the difference is minimal.
There is a large polygenic distance in between britons+Finns and iberians+tuscans. Mutts are dumb. No surprises
Mutts are either dumb or geniuses. BA greeks and romans are mutts, but smarter than everyone else.
>We can very accurately predict the IQ of modern peoples from the genomic sequence
We can't actually. And 1/3 of the coding segments on the human genome are related to the brain and brain activity. There is a ridiculous ammount of genes involved they are not measuring and whose function is hardly known.
>We can't actually
We can, every large twin study in the 2010s proved that beyond any doubt.
Finns are the biggest mutts in there unless east asian ancestry magically don't count
ASW African-American SW African Ancestry in Southwest US
ACB African-Caribbean African Caribbean in Barbados
MXL Mexican-American Mexican Ancestry in Los Angeles, California
PUR Puerto Rican Puerto Rican in Puerto Rico
CLM Colombian Colombian in Medellin, Colombia
PEL Peruvian Peruvian in Lima, Peru
GIH Gujarati Gujarati Indian in Houston, TX
PJL Punjabi Punjabi in Lahore, Pakistan
BEB Bengali Bengali in Bangladesh
STU Sri Lankan Sri Lankan Tamil in the UK
ITU Indian Indian Telugu in the UK
>iberians and italians have an intelligence closer to that of pajeets than that of britons and finns, let alone asians,
KEK
Frisian schizo losing it again
Meds keep winning.
Eh, I don't trust such studies. There's little to no correlation with ancestry.
Cope
cope 2 😉
That's an outlier MENA migrant turd, Calabrians have constently the lwoest score in PISA texts and in every other parameter imaginable
And;
About the greeks
Did East Med ancestry made Italians more brown eyed? What's with all those blue eyed guys?
7 out of 11.
Also, two had red hair? And most I'm guessing light brown hair
About 20% of Romans had light eyes which is about similar to modern day Spaniards
15%*
Nitpicking
The table shows that 70% had blue eyes. Most of them aren't Romans, but they are from Italy and they had similar ancestry to Romans.
Depend which population we are talking about
North Italians celts are overall similar to modern north Italians
These aren't Celts. There are Italian Beakers, Middle Bronze Age samples, proto- and Villanovans and some Iron Age ones.
They are all pretty similar.
True I hadnt looked in details for their location.
>They are all pretty similar.
Though I think Iron age central Italians took their form after Urnfield migration, some of these must be older than that?
Not really.
>As regards to the data on the pigmentation of eyes, hair, and skin, the following results were obtained from the study on ancient DNA of 11 individuals of the Iron Age and Republican period, coming from Latium and Abruzzo, and 27 individuals of medieval and early modern period, coming from Latium. In the Iron Age and Republican period, the eye colour is blue in 27% of those examined and dark in the remaining 73%. Hair colour is 9% blond or dark blond, and 91% dark brown or black. The skin colour is intermediate for 82%, intermediate or dark for 9%, and dark or very dark for the remaining 9%. By contrast, the following results were obtained for the medieval and early modern period: the eye colour is blue in 26% of those examined and dark in the remaining 74%. Hair colour is 22% blond or dark blond, 11% red, and 67% dark brown or black. The skin colour is pale for 15%, intermediate for 68%, intermediate or dark for 10%, and dark or very dark for the remaining 7%.[41]
???
Villanovan without blue eyes?
Both villanovans have blue eyes.
>distance 0.42
Point proven? Thats a gigantic distance
Fake...
How do you read this?
How is the box determined? Is the line in the box the average or median?
Use your brain
Great, now this shitty graph will be posted in every ancient DNA thread.
By the way, a bunch of interesting abstracts from some conference got released.
Samnites:
>Genomic data also revealed that the ancestry of these individuals mainly arose from the Italian mainland, with some showing additional ancestry from the eastern Mediterranean. Our results shed light on the social organization of this ancient group and highlight the potential of archaeogenetic approaches for unravelling the interplay of genetic admixture, mating patterns, and marital practices associated to mobility in pre-Roman Italy.
MBA Calabria:
>We also contextualize the biogeographical origin and ancestry of prehistoric people of Calabria within the broad landscape of existing data from Mediterranean populations. We investigate the persistence of distinct genomic components, such as Near Eastern-related ancestry, for which we provide the earliest appearance in mainland southern Italy. We also highlight the first evidence for prehistoric Italy of close-kin incestuous mating, which we address in light of the existing archaeological, anthropological, sociological and historical knowledge.
Something for mentally ill people:
Picenes:
>Our investigation unveiled genetic homogeneity not only among the two Picene sites, indicating extensive gene flow, but also between the Picenes and other contemporary populations, pointing to a common genetic origin of the Italic Iron Age ethnic groups. Despite this homogeneity, relevant genetic distinctions emerged between coeval Adriatic and Tyrrhenian populations, pointing to genetic contacts between the Adriatic coast of Italy and the Balkans and/or NORTHERN EUROPE.
Roman and post-Roman Spain:
>We have collected genome-wide data from 255 newly reported ancient individuals from Iberia spanning from the Roman era to the Great Migration period.
>Our findings reveal that the populations in Roman-period Iberia were as diverse as those in other central and western Mediterranean regions, like central Italy (Antonio et al. 2019) and the Danubian frontier (Olalde & Carrion et al. 2023).
Levant:
> Through this new genomic dataset, we report evidence of diverse ancestries and population structure between Kamid el-Loz and the nearby contemporaneous coastal site of Sidon in the Middle-Late Bronze Age, and detect gene flow at Kamid el-Loz after the Bronze Age, bringing Iranian- or Caucasus-like ancestry.
Something new - Arabia:
>In this study, we report whole-genome sequence data obtained from four Tylos-period individuals from Bahrain. Their genetic ancestry can be modeled as a mixture of sources from ancient Anatolia, Levant, and Iran/Caucasus, with variation between individuals suggesting population heterogeneity in Bahrain before the onset of Islam.
>>Our findings reveal that the populations in Roman-period Iberia were as diverse as those in other central and western Mediterranean regions, like central Italy (Antonio et al. 2019) and the Danubian frontier (Olalde & Carrion et al. 2023).
My schizophrenia is once again vindicated
>iberians near the bottom of the list
Oh nonononono
How do i read this? The black line in middle? The dots?
The dots
Copper Age Iberian differ more from modern Iberian than contemporary north west european do.
It's absolutely not. It's the distance you can find within one country north and south.
Meh small differences overall and the main implication here is that slants are naturally smarter which isn't going with the wignat narrative. Supposedly.
>It's absolutely not. It's the distance you can find within one country north and south.
Countries are often composed by largely different people. Distances accurate for the same peoples are within a range of maybe 0.3/0.35. Anything above 0.4 is larger than reasonable.
Black line in the middle is the median, the dots are the scores. The rest of stuff is error bars and deviation
Shouldn't medieval england be at the highest? Their median is the same as the ancient greek one and they have the most dots on top
Black line is the median, darker than average dots are low confidence results, other dots are normal, the transversal black line is the dispersion range, coloured box is more of an average deviation range but its not that meaningful, read the medieval irish one for example. The box is readily incoherent because it struggles averaging a group with 2 different plots, one below and one above average. All in the median and the deviation ranges are probably more representative
So the top 3 are Mycaneans > Impeirial Romans > Gauls, right?
No, they are arranged by scores
>neolithic british are smarter than medieval british
>hey guys, today we're going to retroactively guess the average IQs of populations who lived thousands of years before IQ tests were invented
OP, your study's methodology is dubious at best and your conclusions are total bunk.
We can very accurately predict the IQ of modern peoples from the genomic sequence and have even isolated intelligence genes in particular. What makes you think the most reproducible model in the entire field of Intelligence research can not be applied to ancient genome sequences?
>We can very accurately predict the IQ of modern peoples
Not individuals, there are always outliers of people who score high on IQ tests but have low polygenic scores and vice versa.
Makes you wonder who was that moronic WHG or viking.
Following Taleb's logic, the outliers make the most change happen, so Medieval England wins.
This outlier is likely a Norman also this is moronic logic and you're a disgusting footgay
romans and mycenaeans seem to have the most "average" low leaning class as in they dont have a largely "below average" set but all of their dots seem to be mostly dispersed within the low end never reaching the lowest part, other sets seem to have higher density of dots in the high ends and beyond while also having a sector of moronic population
This tbqh. Romans dont look particullary intelligent for example. Its jsut that the dumb romans arent super dumb and the smart ones are very average.
Sound like you're trying to cope your way around this to me
>Call the Romans not very intelligent
>Can't even type correctly
>Sound like you're trying to cope your way around this to me
In which way? Its just what the study shows
They have lower dispersion, and their dispersion on the smart side of the chart is low, its just that their dispersion on the low side is not remarkably low.
They were a midwit people.
They also dont have the highest median. It corresponds to medieval england. Together with the highest density of smart individuals
>They have lower dispersion, and their dispersion on the smart side of the chart is low
You must consider that we have less samples for ancient greeks and romans than we do eg for medieval anglos
And the medieval england samples are all random peasants, meanwhile the roman and greek samples are overrepresented in the higher social classes. So im guessin that the results...
lol, it's probably mostly from the Anglo-Saxon set.
Yes?, they were mostly random cementeries with all social classes. Predominantly peasantry.
It was mostly warriors.
Sad there are no classical and hellenistic Greeks, they would be smarter than bronze age ones.
Moe studies from the same authors published in the same source
>In Italy, North-South Differences in Student Performance Are Mirrored by Differences in Polygenic Scores for Educational Attainment
Davide piffer
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362991140_In_Italy_North-South_Differences_in_Student_Performance_Are_Mirrored_by_Differences_in_Polygenic_Scores_for_Educational_Attainment
>Intelligence Trends in Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of Roman Polygenic Scores
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372574185_Intelligence_Trends_in_Ancient_Rome_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Roman_Polygenic_Scores
>Predicted IQ vs actually measured IQ
Lynn and his buddies can't catch a break
>In a 2010 article about IQ in Italy,[79] Lynn contended that IQs are highest in the north (103 in Friuli Venezia Giulia) and lowest in the south (89 in Sicily) and are correlated with average incomes, stature, infant mortality, literacy and education. The lack of any actual IQ test data (as Lynn used PISA score data) among other methodological issues and Lynn's consequent conclusions were criticised.[80][81] Other large surveys in Italy have found much smaller differences in educational achievement.[82][83] Several subsequent studies based on the direct assessment of IQs failed to report significant differences among Italian regions. On the contrary, the results from the Southern half of the country (103) are sometimes higher than those from the North Central regions (100–101).[84][85]
Moreover the more recent study proves that Imperial Romans didn't have a lower IQ than Republican ones.
Criticism refuted already by 6 different datasets
>Conclusion
CBGMT give results for seven data sets for IQs in the north and south of Italy. All of these show that IQs are higher than in the north than in the south. The results of the internet study and of six further studies confirm this conclusion and show that the difference between the north and the south of Italy is approximately 10 IQ points
>although the differences are not as great as those I calculated. Other criticisms to the effect that the PISA tests are not measures of intelligence are refuted.
Funny thing, Portuguese do better at Pisa than Icelanders.
The correlation between pisa scores and iq has been positively confirmed to be of >0.9
A correlation of 1.0 is absolute and direct.
Italians btw score worse than pakis and poos in the uk on pisa.
https://files.catbox.moe/8a6ehd.jpg
Basef Paki, Indian and Nigerian geniuses in the UK, frick spaghetti slurping manlets
>70% EEF J2/G2 churkas are most intelligent
its over
Medieval Irish have the highest median
This board confirmed to be morons who cant read box plots
Seems kinda logical, the more civilized the more inteligent you are, see the even wider gap between the hg cavemen and neolithic socities in the other study (Yunus Kujiper), the most advanced, the greeks, are the most intelligent, the european abos are the dumbest